Poppa_Zit wrote: TimChgo9 wrote:Why the dislike for the "desktop" controls? I am curious about this, what is it that makes the control stand more preferable?Good questions that I'll second, and let me add: Do the ordering railroads have certain options available to them when ordering new locomotives -- like we have when ordering a new car? Maybe part of what you dislike is something your employers have ordered rather than EMD?
TimChgo9 wrote:Why the dislike for the "desktop" controls? I am curious about this, what is it that makes the control stand more preferable?
Good questions that I'll second, and let me add: Do the ordering railroads have certain options available to them when ordering new locomotives -- like we have when ordering a new car? Maybe part of what you dislike is something your employers have ordered rather than EMD?
I used to be the keeper of the new locomotive specs for Conrail circa 1990. Here's what we did. The builder has a general spec for the locomotive that becomes the basis of the RR's spec. IT had all the standard features as well as several options spelled out - like standard versus extended range DB. Added to that would be any particular item that we required that wasn't in the spec or we wanted different from the spec. This usually was a fairly long list of RR particulars. For example, Conrail wanted Harmon Ultracab installed. It would have to be described in fair detail including how and where the equipment should be located, how it was to be integrated into the cab electronics, where the cut-out was and how it was to be secured, etc. Most of these details were hashed out between the RR and the builder in spec meetings, with revisions made as warranted.
A few of the other particulars would be cab seat number an type, radio antenna, switching step configuration, plow type, size and contour, radiator fan clearance, lube oil sampling valve, air brake schedule, wiring of soak back pump and radio, radio and EOT mounting and models, mounting of spare knuckles, tool board, toilet model and drain configuration, marker lights, painting and lettering details, horn type and mounting, testing requirments, etc, etc.
Sometimes, the specs were performance based. For example, Conrail did not spec out an isolated cab, but that there be an 80dB limit on cab noise. EMD's solution was the isolated cab.
Since the specs became part of the contract with the builder, it was fairly important to get them right, although there usually were several sets of revisions made after the order was booked. Our Quality Control dept had the job of making sure the specs were followed during constuction and that often lead to differences in interpretation of the spec that were hammered out during the construction.
The biggest "uh-oh" I went through was when EMD painted the first few SD60Ms with some sort of standard sans-serif font rather than Conrail's std lettering set. These were the first EMDs built for Conrail in London rather than LaGrange and some institutional knowledge got lost in the move. As background, Conrail did it's lettering with peel and stick Scotchcals while EMD and GE did paint and stencil work. This was partly my fault by being too lazy to do some research. The deal went down something like this:
EMD: "We want to make sure we're doing the lettering right. Our drawing shows Helvitica sans serif (or something like that). Is that correct?"
Me: I had no idea what Helvetica sans serif was or that Conrail's lettering set was unique to Conrail and, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought they could screw up a paint job. I'd even met their head painting and styling guy in LaGrange a year or two before and I was impressed how they went about thing, so I said: " Is that was you've always used for us?"
EMD: "Yes, we think so."
Me: "OK, just do it the way you've always done it for us." And that was that.
As it turns out, somewhere in LaGrange, they had a hard copy drawing of the Conrail lettering, but when they did their painting and styling dwgs, they used Helvetica sans serif, because that was the closest thing available in their CAD system. It was meant simply as a placeholder to show where the lettering was to be placed and not as an instruction for which lettering to use. But, that knowledge got lost in the move somewhere.
If I had been bothered to check it out - and it wouldn't have been too hard to do - I'd have caught it. What happened instead, was the first few units got painted and our QC guys, who were not railfans, never noticed the lettering was wrong. When the first unit is ready to go, they have a sample unit inspection. This is where a whole bunch of us crawl all over the first unit and accept it for delivery. There usually is a fairly sizeable entourage including the CMO. Because I was the keeper of the specs, I usually got invited.
So, we all arrive at EMD in London and go outside to take a look at the first unit. Everyone is more interested in how the cab looked, since this was the first "M" cab unit on the our railroad. But, after about 5 minutes of looking, it hits me. The letterin is wrong. I think I first noticed the the "O"s and "0" were not round, but oblong, so I spoke up. Here it is in Helvetica: CONRAIL "The lettering's wrong", I said.
EMD: "What?"
Me: "I said, the lettering's wrong."
EMD: "But it's Helvetica sans serif, like we said."
Me: "Yeah, but that's wrong."
This led to a bunch of phone calls, faxed drawings and lots of discussion. In the end, EMD repainted the few they'd done wrong.
This problem led us to discover that GE had been using the wrong lettering for the locomotive numbers for years and the second batch of C40-8Ws were the first out with the right lettering.
I'll bet that if you scratch the paint on the 5500 and a few of it's sisters, you'll find that old, wrong lettering burried beneath.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You spend years hoping that you can hold a yard job and then the job is remoted out of existence. Maybe you didn't lose your job, you've still got a job but when you were hoping to get off the road, it makes a difference. Less engineer jobs equal less trainmen jobs, too, because in today's railroad world, it all filters down to the junior men.
The remotes I've seen have convinced me that they're far less effective than a good engineer coupled up with a couple of good switchmen but that doesn't seem to matter.
oversearailway wrote: The main reasons for opposition to remote control in the US stems from a number of factors. 1) The locomotive is operated not by an "engineer", but a conductor. The engineer lost his job. Also, the conductor performs the same work under the same guidelines as a "government" licensed engineer, without being required to have a license. A conductor using remote control, can destroy lots of equipment and still have his job tomorrow, while the engineer will be "in the street" for a least a month or forever. The conductor just goes back to a regular job that doesn't utilize remote control.2) The railroads and the "FRA" have permitted conductors (without a government license) to have a shoving platform, where they can use the remote control to shove themselves (on board) over many miles of railroad and over "public road crossings." There is a safety issue here as well as a licensing issue. Also, there have been other problems with them, but these are a few from the workers standpoint. Basically, if a conductor can do all the work without a license, why are locomotive engineers required to be licensed and subject to penalties and federal certification. All which the railroads and the government happily ignore.Regarding desktop control stands. I prefer them for over the road, but I agree they are difficult and a menace for switching. Oversearailway
The main reasons for opposition to remote control in the US stems from a number of factors.
1) The locomotive is operated not by an "engineer", but a conductor. The engineer lost his job. Also, the conductor performs the same work under the same guidelines as a "government" licensed engineer, without being required to have a license. A conductor using remote control, can destroy lots of equipment and still have his job tomorrow, while the engineer will be "in the street" for a least a month or forever. The conductor just goes back to a regular job that doesn't utilize remote control.
2) The railroads and the "FRA" have permitted conductors (without a government license) to have a shoving platform, where they can use the remote control to shove themselves (on board) over many miles of railroad and over "public road crossings." There is a safety issue here as well as a licensing issue.
Also, there have been other problems with them, but these are a few from the workers standpoint. Basically, if a conductor can do all the work without a license, why are locomotive engineers required to be licensed and subject to penalties and federal certification. All which the railroads and the government happily ignore.
Regarding desktop control stands. I prefer them for over the road, but I agree they are difficult and a menace for switching.
Oversearailway
The engineers do not lose their jobs. Senority still has a place over here.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
BigJim wrote: Big Jim, one of the saddest things I've seen is the way that EMD lost their way from the superb locomotives they used to build. Yes, sad!I just don't understand EMD. It doesn't seem as though they are doing any field work at all asking the people that actually use their products about what works and what doesn't. The really really sad part is that EMD is being cussed by EVERY engineer that has blown the horn on the new units and then they can't turn the automatic bell off. I just don't know what was going through their minds on that one!
Big Jim, one of the saddest things I've seen is the way that EMD lost their way from the superb locomotives they used to build. Yes, sad!
I just don't understand EMD. It doesn't seem as though they are doing any field work at all asking the people that actually use their products about what works and what doesn't.
The really really sad part is that EMD is being cussed by EVERY engineer that has blown the horn on the new units and then they can't turn the automatic bell off. I just don't know what was going through their minds on that one!
Could the automatic bell be a customer option? The UP's latest SD70ace engines I've had you could turn the bell off after blowing the horn.
What I'd like is for EMD to allow us to manually use sand in power above 12 to 15 MPH. There are times it seems to take the computer a long time to realize that conditions require a little sand on the rail.
Jeff
As an ex-rail manager, train driver and enthusiast(!), I'd also like to know why there is this oposition to remote operation of shunting/switching moves. We had similar in UK when EWS (Wisc Cent) tried to introduce it.
Surely, it is often much safer and gives better vision if the loco operator is on the ground, so why not have that option and use it?
Can a freight driver/engineer explain the oposition, please?
Thx.
Eric Stuart ex-UK, now in France.
Classic Fan wrote: I have placed orders for units since 1982 and have been part of several 'industry wide' efforts to standardize.
While you are in the process of ordering, do your fellow employees a big fat favor and tell EMD..."We don't want your stinkin' auto bells (that can't be turned off)!".
.
Railroads have usually ordered per their own desires which amazingly vary even in this day and age. I have placed orders for units since 1982 and have been part of several 'industry wide' efforts to standardize. This would seem to make sense with the degree of run through activity these days however individual roads built in infrastucture such as cab signalling or automatic train stop for example can vary a new unit's price by several hundred thousand dollars. A major break here is between the east and the west roads.
I echo the concerns in some other replies about EMD's change from the past and hope that being independent from GM will enable a fesh look. Both builders are adding standard features with each model that cost to change but again individual roads infrastructures will still require various options.
BaltACD wrote: TimChgo9 wrote:Why the dislike for the "desktop" controls? I am curious about this, what is it that makes the control stand more preferable?Engineers in their careers spend much more time involved in switching movments than they do in straight away line of road forward movement. Whenever movements other than straight away line of road movements are necessary....the engineer is looking out the side cab window for the conductor or brakeman that is on the ground being the 'seeing eye dog' for the movement....coupling the engines to the train....setting cars off or picking cars up at industry and any of the 101 things that have to be done in the normal days operation.Desktop controls feature that all the Engineers time is spent in forward line of road operations and nothing could be further from the truth. Desktop controls don't facilitate all the time the the engineer must spend with his head out the side window observing and reacting to the signals from his ground crew.The standard AAR control stand can be operated with the engineers back toward it and have his visual attention directed either fore or aft out the side window as is necessary for safe switching operations.
Of course if you guys could accept electronic remote loco control units this would not be a problem as you could do it without turning your back to the controls or even control the loco while standing on the ground to better see what is going on.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Why the dislike for the "desktop" controls? I am curious about this, what is it that makes the control stand more preferable?
The dislike, at least as far as I am concerned, comes from a combination of having to be hunched over the desk top to operate the controls and not being able to stretch out.
With a standard control stand, the engineer is able to change positions throughout the trip, that may last up to 12 hrs. It also makes for better vision and control in switching operations.
I HATE DESKTOPS!!!
Unfortunately the new SD70M-2s, even though they have the AAR control stand, EMD somehow was able to screw things up again.
First, they put the headlight switches ahead of the throttle and D/B handles necessitating the handles having to be moved rearward. Now the D/B handle is so far back that the bell handle mounting gets in the way when you want to grab the D/B handle.
Second, they went and put a desktop right in front of the engineer,right where it gets in the way of his legs. Tall guys can forget about stretching out their legs.
All in all, everything EMD made right, they made something else wrong to balance things out. Very very frustrating to say the least.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.